Tuesday, 31 March 2009

If Atheists Ruled The World

Arguing online with believers has become something of a hobby for me, so in the interests of balance I would like to present this video which nicely distils some their better arguments. It gets a bit racy, so may be NSFW.

For the believers out there, think of this as a primer on how to argue with those evil atheists.

And if you see them smirking as you offer these pearls of wisdom, it just means you’re getting through.

[ Thanks to Jack for the tip. ]

23 comments:

Quick Joe Smith said...

It's a shame they didn't use the best one of the lot:

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."

Matt said...

That's fantastic, Joe.
I've heard the first part of that argument offered before, but sadly never had someone get SO CLOSE to the answer on their own.
As so often happens, the only appropriate response is a raised eyebrow as we wait for the penny to drop.

ZAROVE said...

Mathew, I have to ask you if you've seriosuly considered why you hatde Christians so much.

Spar eme the usual rhetoric abotu how dangerous and dilusional Christians are. You are just parroting Darkins and Hitchens and Carrier when you do that.

I want to know why you have ot go out of your way to find ways to mock and insult peopel who happen to be CHristian?

I beleive its because when you became an Ahtiest, you wher epromoted to this Ahtiest both by an internal struggle, and by reading outside material, mainly from th same category of Hostile Atheists who blame Relgiion on all the worlds problems, and have adopted that mentality wholecloth, from the Humanism (WHich itself is Ironiclaly a Religion even if modern propnonants dislike admiting this) to the underlying need to express an aggressive naturalism, tot he (Often fienged) love of Sicnece, tot he heralding of Reasona nd Ratioality na dlinkign this to Ahtiesm, your just repeatign claims that where common in the Enlightenment.

I suspect that you haven't investegated the origins of he strains of thoguh you now give freely as your own, and haven't relaly bothered ot challenge or wuestion them.

You just accept it as your new Identity and embrace the cause because it has a sense of personal empowerment, especially if you htink you use logic and reaosn and the "Beleivers" are all delusional and mentlaly your infirior.


This of ocurs eis hwy you enjoy it and perpetuate it, but I think originally your AntiChristian sentiments came form simply aoptign them form your soruces when you adopted the ientity.

Much like how someone coudl become Anti-American when they joined the COmmunist Cause bakc in the COld War.

But I do wonder why you htink yo have to carry on hating CHristinas, who in truth arnet relaly a threat to you at all, and arne't anywhere near as bad as you clzim.

( ANd I do not doutb you are a former Christain, bntu do doubt that you know anythign abiut Christianity given your arguments here.)

Matt said...

Zarove,

I find it really interesting that you think I hate Christians.

Why do you think that? Is it because I disagree with them, sometimes passionately?

Zarove, do you hate people you disagree with?

ZAROVE said...

Matt, think about your blog posts. You arne't disagreeing with Christians, you are assigning malicious intent to them whilst tellign us how dreadful and horrible the Bible is or how illogical and terrible CHristian beleifs are.

You don't just disagree with Christianity, or even passionatley disagree, you use profanity and accusation to malign CHristians.

SHoudl I quote you?

Now don't sidestep the issue.

This is really just you adopting this mentality to bolster your newfound Atheism, isn't it?

Matt said...

Zarove,

A lot of modern Christianity is inherently ridiculous, and that is what this post was intended to convey.

In other posts, I have expressed disdain for their views and in some cases, particularly the Pope, expressed the opinion (which quite common, even among Christians) that he is an ignorant fool.

Don't you sidestep the issue now, Zarove. You have accused me of hating Christians. I'd like you to answer my question: why do you think I hate them?

Sarah said...

Help! I'm melting! It's all the (DN)Acid in my body!

Hee hee hee.

Matt, I am all for open debate but it really pains me to read the series of typographical, grammatical and spelling errors that is the posts of Z. Any chance they can go through some sort of English teacher filter? He's getting a 'D', "shows almost no evidence of drafting, editing or proofreading".

Matt said...

Hi Sarah.
Yes, please excuse Zarove's spelling. He's dyslexic.
I am however unable to offer any justification for the generally obnoxious tone of his comments.
I suspect that's deliberate.

ZAROVE said...

Matt, Im not being obnoxious. Instead, I'm simply citing why your argu,ents are flawed.


And, most of them are just childish rants agaisnt Christianity, which appear to stem from a personal animosity, of which ther is no real thought.


Take a look at your above comment.


Zarove,

A lot of modern Christianity is inherently ridiculous, and that is what this post was intended to convey.



Am I really obnoxious for pointing out that your posts are themselves ridiculous Caracatures of what Christianity is? Nothign you have posted thusfar ony uor blog interacts with the real world, and has no consideration for what Christianity actulaly teaches and why Christians beleive what tey do.

In fact, I fnd it more obnixous that you'd post your reuslts form a "Bible mroality" QUiz that was purposefully designed to distort the Bible in order ot preent it int he orst possibel light, then justify this by saying CHristaisn intepret the Bibel nt he best posisble light.

DOes that relaly justify distortion fo atext to abuse it?

I don't think so.

I also foudn it obnixuous that you'd attack the Pope and accuse him of not carign about people because of his stance on an issue, a stance you haven't shown you have any actual understanding of.

And how you said the enture Cahtolic HCurhc shoudl never be allwod to ever have any moral authority ever again because of this.

And the profanity laced ending insults hurled at the pope which where utterly unnessisary.


Yet, this is all OK, but somehow Im obnoxious because I call into wuesitn your arguments, and the motivaiton behind them?

Come now matt, this isn't obnoxious of me, its simply that I want to express why this sort of bigoted hatred is both useless and coutnerproductive, and fails to engage in any serious attemto at thought.



In other posts, I have expressed disdain for their views and in some cases, particularly the Pope, expressed the opinion (which quite common, even among Christians) that he is an ignorant fool.



Your disdain, htough, seems ot preceed the critisism of a spaific point. That is one of my overall points.

Basically, you hate CHristianity, but love to ind falt wiht it. THus, you scouer the itnernet, and possibely other soruces, to find ways to argue agaisnt CHristianity as a whole.

Thats why the Bibel Morality quiz was posted. You and I boith know full well those quesitosn wheren't "Straight out of the Bible", they where manipualted ot create a desired effect.

By postign that , you wherne't showign how ridiculus CHristian beleifs where, you where simply showing how ridiculous you could be when you seek to find an excuse to hate dsoemthing.

Your disdane for Christianty doens't rest o these percieved horribel things CHrisyianity does, it rests on yor adoption of a form of Ahtistic beleif that has embraced Anti-Christianity, and that owes its orgins tot he ENlightdnment. (Rousseu and Ropesphere, as I said.)

As you have embraced a sort of COnflict thesis in whuch Religion and Reason are at odds, and Religion of ocurse mans Christianity, and have adopted the beleifs of the Atheist, you must bonow see CHristianity as the enemy to oppose. Its a foundaitonal tenet of your Atheistic religious beelifs. Its inherant in your view.

However, this ha snothgin to do wuththe spacific points and posts you raise, your prejudice is poreexisting, you just use them as props to support the thesis.



Don't you sidestep the issue now, Zarove. You have accused me of hating Christians. I'd like you to answer my question: why do you think I hate them?



I already told you.

Your posts here reveal a level of contemot that is evident, but the arguments you issue are simpy regurgetatiosn of opinions common in other venues and are oftne unthinking and illogical.

You seem to also enjoy seeking arguments agaisnt the Christian faith by your own admission, in order to post them.

Yoru use of insults and frequent profanity compelt th epicture.

That is why I say you hate CHristianity, and beleive its because you see it at odds withhe higher ideals of reason, because this is part of the fabric of he philosophy you have noe embraced.


Its not intrinsic to Ahtiesm to hate Christianity, by thre way, but it is intrinsit to the New Ateism, which itself is just a branch of Humanism (WHich in turn is a relgiion in its own right.)

Thats why I think you ultimatley hate Christianity.


THus I answered you on two levels.

Shall we go on? Or do you wsan tot discuss the tenets of Objectivism?

Matt said...

Zarove,

I notice you've modified your accusation of "hating Christians" to "hating Christianity". They're not really the same thing.

And in fact neither accusation is true.

There's a big difference between mocking something as ridiculous and hating it.

I've left a comment over on the "Fear" post that explains my position, but it's also relevant here:

"Religion is a valuable part of many people's lives and I have no interest in seeing that ended.

What I'm "anti" is the power that we, as a society, bestow upon religion. We give it a completely undue level of influence in public life, including the lives of non-believers.

Society gives automatic respect to religious proponents and leaves largely unchallenged the idea that religion somehow endows believers with a superior moral code.

One of the things I want to do here [on my blog] is explore my own feelings about religion. At the moment I'm interested in its ridiculous aspects and the dangers of giving it too much influence."

ZAROVE said...

I've answered it Matt. But you do hate CHristianity. its th eonly Religion you bother to challenge, ad your acucsations abotu how the Bibelk is immoral or the Pope malicious are rather evident.

As tot he rest, Ill repeat my main theme.

In a Free society, peopel shoudl be allowed ot be ho they are and to speak thir minds. They shoudlnt be forced to leave what they belive in, and what defines them as peope, in their homes and plces of worhsip, just so a Humanist liek you can make sure all of the way society runs in general are guided by your religion.

The reason Clergy are givin respect and influence is because they have spent years sudying Philosophy and morality, and have usually years of expernce in counseling and lookign into real wrld applications.

Rather you liek it or not, even Athiest scholars and observers say that Religiosu beelifs are both intrinsic in humanity, and offer valuable insights. EVen as an Ahtiest you shoudl be abl ot read the Bible and see in it great wiadom and themes that cna be explored, jut as I can see in the Iliad or the Vedas vale, rather or not my acutal beleifs agre with them.

And to this end, I've always shown respect to others, and especally clegy, even of relgiiosn not my own.

If a Muslim Imam also happens ot hold a Ph.D and has spent years reading the Great Philosophers of the ages, and has then spent years workign in a Moswue where he has had to counsel people in all problems in life, I will have a tremendous respect for him and listen to what he has to say abut scial ills, because he will have a great insight into it. THe same is true of a Buddhist Priets or Monk, or of a Hindu Holy man.

Jewish Rabbis are renown for their social and ethical insights, all base don years of study alongside practical application and expeirnce.

WHy shoudk they keep this great treasure of knowlede tot hemselves, and off the oublic square? So we can liv ein an oppressive Humanism, that appeases you personally?


The same, of ocruse, applies to CHristians who have spent years in this.

WHy shoudl we not show them respct and allow them a natural infleucne base dupin recognition o the insights they have gained by the traditions nd understandings hey follow?

WHere is the wisdom in not?

Oh thats right, you want society to work along humanist principles, the GOvement to pass lws base odn Humaist philosophial beelifs, and society to be free of anythgin that even suggests ther eis a different way.

And thats the real problem here.

Sarah said...

Just in case Zarove hasn't worked this out, I'll admit it: I'm Matt's little sister.

I think that Matt has rational objections to Christianity. My own personal objection (and it is personal, I have others as well) is that so much of my time growing up was wasted at church. I felt that my volleyball, gymnastics and ice hockey were all less important than church activities. I feel like I lost the chance to do things that I now realise are more important to me. Physical activity has more value to me now than so called spiritual issues.

And seriously Zarove, would reading over your posts once to check that they make sense kill you?

ZAROVE said...

Saah, Ive been accued of beign defensive in this blog, and nowt makign sense. But my posts do make sense. They may contain misspelled words, and I may be contradicting you, but that doesn't mean I dont make sense.

Also, Sarah, is it particualry Rational to say you wates time in Churhc hwen you even admited that gpign to Church was mroe important to you at the time?

I use to do things I no longer see as important, but because I do not repudte them as dangrous, I don't see my apst actiosn as a waste.

Nor shodul you. It snot liek you where destorying lives or ruinign the orld by attenting Church, and htis is one of the htings I note abut the sort of Militant Atheist that is really daft.

WHy hold personal animosity toward Christianity in general base dupon your free association with Christianity in the past?

You wher enot truly harmed by the expeirnce, and as much as you'd liek to read harm into it now looking back, iff you where hoenst with yourself you'd realise that this is simply not a rational way to spend your time.

Also, Matts "Rational objections" seem to amount ot nothign more htan the usual trife one can read from Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris.

Basiclaly, eh starts with the idea that somehow all Religisu beleif is inheratnly irraitonal and dangrous then works into arguments used ot prove the conclusion he already holds to. Most of the arugmetns he rpesented ehre arne't rational at all.

I've met Ratioaal Atheists before, by the way. Intellegent, well thought out arguments can be made, but the Rational Atheists also understand that Christians arne't irrational or delusional because of their beleifs. Matt, and you, seem incapable of admittign this, and indeed, incapable of even doign the slightest amount of researhc into what the beelifs your ridiculing acutlaly are.


As I said earlier, I do not care that you use to be a Christian, if you say soemthing that isn't actulaly true about what CHristians teach (Especially a group yu didn't belogn to) then your argument is inherantly wrong, dispite your past expernces.

When Matt assigned to the Pope malicious intentions, he's wrong. THe Pope hasn't displayed a callous disregard for Human life in roeference for dogma, he is simply assetiong the beleifs of the CHurhc in ehat he thinks is best for Humanity. One can reasonabkley disagree wiht the Pope, but Matt didn't, he just attacke dhim, as if no one coudl possbley logiclaly agre with any part of that argument.

Thats not rational at all, and it shows a tendancy of Matts to simply attack Christianity in any way he can. You woudl have the same tendancy I think.

And thats the point in my postign here.

My Defensiveness is alrgley an illusion created by expectation. I knwo that my bad spellign helps wihthte illusion of an irraitonal ramt, but that relaly is just cause dby DYslexia. My defensiveness is just because Im a Christian and am on an Ahtists blog and peopek just asusme Im here ot stir troubles. Relay Im here to set some things staight and to hopefully calm Matt down form his need to be so aggressive himself.

But these illusions show a poitn too, that in Matts mind, and in yours, no argument for Chrisyianity can be made that is raitonal, and no Chrustian canbe rational. Cnflating Reason with Atheism is common too, but it doens't mean that his aobjectiosn are actuallly Rational.


A little of my background, thouhg.


I am of the CHurches of CHrist, I am also an academic. I am in University to gain two degres, Psycology and THeology. I am classiclaly read, and underdtand philosophy, which in turn is deeply linked ot Theology.

I've also understood the historical basis for the arugments Matt presents, such as how Christianity hampersprigress. Its a claim mainly formt he ENlightnment, thats grown mostly in Piop CUlture these days.


I've studied everyhtign form the CHurch Fathers to Ayn Rand. I can make a case for Neitche's beleifs as storgly as I can for Karl Marx, and yet I disagree with boht of them.

So when I see someone making "Rational objecitons" to CHristainity that consit of Bibke uotes taken out of context or profanity laced attac son the Pope, it doens't relaly sit well with me. THose arne't well reasoned arguments agaisnt Christianity, they are simpley vitirol.

Am I really suppose to beelive the Cahtolci posiitn is devoid of all Logic? I've read through Humane Vitae, and I've spent time with the current Popes work on the subject, I know full well that a lot of time and effort wa sout into studying the mater,and has been since at leats Paul the 6th.

Matt, on the ote hand, has likely never read anhthing by any Pope, and has not really shown any understandgn of evn the modern Medica community (WHich Ill be in, my degree in Psycology lads ot Psychietry.)

Am i suppose t sit here and think his arugments are rational and Im irrational because he happens to be the Athist and is pretendign to Science?

All I see is someone with a grudge against Christianity making irrational argments as an excuse to salag off.

And my only real argument to Matt thusfar, the sole sum totlal of my existanc eon his blog, and the main poitn Ive made thats won me the title of irraitonal and defensive, is that he elaly shouldn't go about attackign Christianity for no reason whatsoever.

And it is, in th end, for no reaosn whatsoever.

Is that really nonsense?

Quick Joe Smith said...

I call shennanigans on your claims. Academics tend not to rely on ad hominems and automatic gainsaying in arguments. Academics focus on the issue being argued; not the people arguing them.

In response to my comments regarding how you read Matt's "Fear" post, you didn't address a single point I made; instead labelling me "anti-Christian" and just kept attacking Matt's character. In response to criticism, you dismiss it as irrational hatred of your religion.

You are not an academic. You are not trained in debate. You fit the description of a lonely attention-seeker with a persecution complex.

Matt said...

I'm going to have to agree with Joe on that one, Zarove. If my sister the English teacher is giving you a 'D' then it doesn't bode well for your PhD(s).

Still, I will address your final point.

I have every reason to attack Christianity.

Christianity is a religion whose proponents are a powerful political force and whose basis is the myth and superstition of Middle Eastern writings from 2,000+ years ago.

A government controlled by, or even heavily influenced by, Christian interests would be disastrous for freedom of speech, freedom of other religions, scientific advancement and a whole host of other things. We've seen the potential for that realised in the recent Bush administration.

Christianity, like all religions, has no objective evidence to support its claims, and so it lives or dies by the power of assertion and the faith of its adherents.

The only way to battle such a power base is to mock it.

The good works and positive philosophies will survive because they are self-evidently valuable. However, the rest of it is worthy only of scorn and scorn it shall have.

Dr Rachie said...

good luck my friend...

Matt said...

Thanks, Dr Rachie!

ZAROVE said...

Joe, Ive not issued Ad hom.

I;ve beein critical of Matts atitude and arguments, but have never argued by insult againt him personally. The big list of logical fallacies just dent work when you throw a lable zt soemone.

Matt.


I'm going to have to agree with Joe on that one, Zarove. If my sister the English teacher is giving you a 'D' then it doesn't bode well for your PhD(s).



1: I am a doctoral s=tudent. I dont hav ehte degrees yet.

2: Your sister is also inherantly baised in faovur of both the Ahtietsic worldview, thus baised agisnt me personally as the antethesis, and in favour of you.

Again, my spelling may be bad, but not my grammer, and the spellign is dyslexia.

And again, Ive not aruged on Ad Hom, Ive instead challenged the fundamental reason you attack Christianity.



Still, I will address your final point.


No, you'll just spout the usual drek I hear form Ahtiets that have been floaitng aroudn since th Enlightenment and that makes good propganda, but won't even bother to realise that Ive heard all this before, much less support anythign you assert.



I have every reason to attack Christianity.



No you don't.



Christianity is a religion whose proponents are a powerful political force and whose basis is the myth and superstition of Middle Eastern writings from 2,000+ years ago.



Humanists also form a powerful political lobby, and have had a trakc record of actual murder base don their misreading of Humanity.

That said, the whole "Myth and syuperstition" routine is stale, Matt. Its not like you've actulaly proven its all Myth and superstition, and given the number of well educated men who themselves are Christian, and who have elaborated on the Chrisyian Faith and its reasons in great detail evn in our modern world, it becoes disingenious to simply lable it "Myth and Superstituon".

Again, your basiclaly regurgetatign the midnless attacks used agaisnt Christianity at the time o the Enlightenment, but your not actulaly examining the claims of he Faith you mock.

Simply lablign it "Myth and Superstition" doens't make it myth and superstition, though, does it?

Your view on the matter is too biased.




A government controlled by, or even heavily influenced by, Christian interests would be disastrous for freedom of speech, freedom of other religions, scientific advancement and a whole host of other things.


WHy?

The truth is, it woudln't nessisarly be that bad. America is heavily infleunced by Cristianity and guess what? Family guy airs here, and it outright attacks Christianity. Dan Barker has never been arrested for his routine attacks on CHristianity. Codm to think of it, I seem to recall that Sam Harris lives here.


Actually, many Christians are Libertarian, and advance free speech.

Whats the absis of your claim that it wodl be dangeorus to it?

As to the advancement of Sicnece, this too is a daft argument. As I said earlier, many Christians are themselves Sicnetists. There is nohtign inate in Christianity that woudl hault Sicnetific progress. In fact, modern Sicence was derived out of Christian thinking.

Even other religions woudln't find intoelrance in a Cristian infleucned society. Christaisn zre capable of, and frequently rpactice, tolerance for those of other Faith. I know, I live in the heart of the Bible belt, and we do have Muslims, Jews, and Hindus in CHattanooga. None of them seem to thinkt hey are discriminated agaisnt, even though you hear GOspel Music at Laundromatts and see peopel handign out GOspel Tact son th street.


Matt, your claim of how CHristianity wodl be dangeorus to Freedom fo speech, other religions, and Sicntific advancement is derived out of a sterotyoe created, again in the enlightenment, and propogated by hateful and bigoted Ahtiets who simply use the idea htat Christianity is inehrantly oppressive ot justify their attacks.

But tis not relaly base don anyhting that is proven to exist in the real world.

Athiestic rgemes such as the SOcviet Unionand COmmunist CHina have been less kidn to Relgiiosu pluralism and free speech, and even Sicnetific advancement, thhan a society htat is inhernatly Christian.

Yoru claim is just a lie.




We've seen the potential for that realised in the recent Bush administration.


No we havent. Bush didn't eliminate free speech or toelrance for other religions, and didnt hold bakc Sicnetific progress.

Nor was he leading a particulalry Christian Governmental Philosophy.

You have no concrete exampel sof how any of the above was acutlaly effected by Bush's decisions.

Your just on the Anti-Bush Bandwagon.


Christianity, like all religions, has no objective evidence to support its claims,


Actually it does.

Have you never read anyhting by Tillich? WHat about reading SHoender? Epenheim?

Have you not read Rene Des Carte? (What am I sayign? You think hes beem discredited.)

What about the work of WIlliam Lane Craig? ( I do nto suppor thim by the way, just a note.)

What about Carl Jung? WHat about Rowan Willaims?

SPeakig of which, the Vaticans own extensive records reveal evidence even in modern times for the cliasm they make.

No, Matt, in addition tot he "Daner" supposeldy posed by CHristianity, which you assert but do nto prove, this is just a hollow complaint. A Geneic Athiest claim that itself lacks evidence.




and so it lives or dies by the power of assertion and the faith of its adherents.

Matt, you do realise that Faith is not beleif withotu evidence, right?

I do howp your not goign off into Dawkisn and Harris country, because then Ill be accused of reddefinign Faith when I tell you its acutlaly just anoter word for either ocnfidence or loyalty or trust and ws never udnertsood theologically as beleif withotu evidence.

The Suma Theologica is over 2000 pages long and was Aquinas's work to show Logical proofs of CHristian beleifs. Obviously he didnt udnertsand Faiht as "Beleif withotu evidence."

By the way, the SUma Theological is still considered a fine work of intellectual depth even by NonCHristains, and does erve as evidence for the claims made by Chrstianity.



The only way to battle such a power base is to mock it.



So basicllay you mock CHristiantiy to overtuen it in peipl sminds, after lyign abotu what it is.

Christianity isn't inherantly dangerous to sciety, doenst pose a danger to free speech or adherants of other relgions, and doenst hinder sicnece. its also capable of showign raitonal warrent for Christian beleifs based on evidence and examinaiton, and one can hold to Christianity raitonally based upon said evidence.

To claim that its all faith based nonsence that can obly be combate dby mockery, afte rlyign about it and claimign its dangeorus and not base don reaosn, just shows how empty your argumetns really are.



The good works and positive philosophies will survive because they are self-evidently valuable. However, the rest of it is worthy only of scorn and scorn it shall have.


So your willign to lie abotu it to justify your hatred. Nice.

Quick Joe Smith said...

"I;ve beein critical of Matts atitude and arguments, but have never argued by insult againt him personally."

An ad hominem is not just an insult. But as an academic, you would already know this, right?

An ad hominem is any argument made against the person and not their arguments. So, for example, every time you have said to myself (and, more recently, to Sarah) that they are inherently biased against you because of their atheistic worldview, then you are committing an ad hominem fallacy.

Here is a short list of your other ad hims in both this thread and the one about fear (or at least all the ones I found on a quick sweep through):

* "Spare me the "I was a Christian so know" routine too, because you clearly don't udnerstand even the basis of the theology, and are obviously biased."
* "Your conclusion that Christians fear death and Atheists don't is simply base don your own prejudices and an emotional need to demonise Christianity"
* "But, Im also a Christian so your automaticlaly hostile to me."
* "btut hats no shock since Im a Christian and obviously can never be givin much credit to an Anti-Christian zealot like you."

These next two are directed at me at a point where I had not yet muttered one word about Christianity or my own worldview (which was a complete assumption on your part).

* "and yes i realsie you said my irraitonality may not be cause dby my Religion, but Im pretty sure you htink all Religiosu peopel are Irraitonal so this is a CHicken and Egg scenaro."
* "Of course, beign that you agree with Matts worldview and part of that is Anti-Christian..."
* "You and Matt and others in the New Atheism and anyoen following the thoughts of the Enlightenment and what it promoted will always see people like me as Irrational because you need to."
* "Its part of the fanciful way you lot define yourselves."

Back to ad homs directed at Matt:

* "Matt obviously seeks to vindicate his newfoudn Ahtissm and to demonise Christianity, and has obviously sought out arguments to attack Christuaianity."

Oh, one more at me (which was highly amusing, because along with ad hominem you appear not to know what nepotism means either):

* "and your defence of him, and critisism of me, seems to come from a form of Nepotism because you agree with his Athistic stances."

Not an ad hom, but amusing nonetheless, given that I'd explicitly stated that your Christianity wasn't the reason I perceived you as irrational:

* "The only personal critisim you levied agisnt me was lablign me irraitonal, and that was soley for beign a Christian, not because you had anythign intellegent to sya abut what Ive said here."

Another ad homs against me:

* "Your just defending him because you happen to agree with his posiitons, and dont like me because I challenge them."

Now back to Matt:

* "Your far mroe dangrous than a Christian who is open minded, or a Muslim."
* "That said, if you'd step outside of your idiotic prejudices you'd realise..."
* "This is really just you adopting this mentality to bolster your newfound Atheism, isn't it?"

And one final ad hom against Sarah for good measure:

* "Your sister is also inherantly baised in faovur of both the Ahtietsic worldview, thus baised agisnt me personally as the antethesis, and in favour of you."

ZAROVE said...

Joe, thans for provign my point abitu you. Im a Christian, therefore Im horirbel as a eprosn and use Ad Hom.

Look at the final example though. How is sayign they ar einehrantly biased in favour of their position an Ad Hom? The whole problem I have ith Matts addresses here is that his views arnet informd by rason but rather stem form his Biases.

Thats nto an Ad Hom, thats what Ive been aruging form day one.

The rest arent ad hom either, they are repsonces to his own common claims. (He clais he was a Christian so knows all about Christianity, I want hi to not bother withthat if hes gogn to use a bad arugment, for example.)

Your comment here just shows how you'll teist things Ice said to bolster a negative atitude towars me.


But why not acutklaly engage in my real arugments rather than the endless attmeot to find fault?

Quick Joe Smith said...

"How is sayign they ar einehrantly biased in favour of their position an Ad Hom?"

I think this single quote wonderfully encapsulates the futility of trying to reason with you on any level.

I have nothing left to say. And I think after reading this, nobody else will either.

Thanks for playing, Zarove, but it looks like you do go home empty-handed.

ZAROVE said...

jOE, the insults agsint me, and the whole "Yoru irrational " schtick, may be a nice ay to dismis sme, but the whole point of my presence here is to illustrate that Matts inheranlty baised (An dultimatley emotionally driven) motivation prevents him from postign anything viable and that his arguments are poor as a result.

Its not Ad Hom when the point of the argument is to call into qwuestion the authos intentions in the first place.

Quick Joe Smith said...

That's not a reason for why you extend those ad hominems to myself and Sarah, two people that are not Matt.

Also, the way you would demonstrate Matt's inherent bias would be to argue logically and dispassionately against his points. There is an important difference between the point of your argument and the means by which you make it that you don't seem to understand.

On a final note, I would be reconsidering your presence here. You must realise by now that you're not going to succeed. You've long ago made whatever point you were ever going to, and I suggest moving on to greener pastures for your trolling.